Indeed, I identified not one, not two, but three Tragedy of the Commons happening regarding these sustainability issues, though not all at the same level, but probably reinforcing the whole problem at a bigger level (haven’t modelled that from a higher level, though, someone ought to do it. Volunteers, somewhere?). They are:

I’m worried because, like so many expert advices in organizations and governments, it’s unheard by those in a position to lead the change. To the best case, it will end on presidential desks and maybe will be read by them. To the worst, it will be forgot or even fuel that “tragedy of the commons” we’re experiencing regarding ecology on a global level where the more pressing the situation is, the more pushy ecologically aware people will become, thereby making leaders resist.

To me, the problem is two-fold: 1) experts having a non systemic perspective and 2) experts pushing leaders to change using fear.

“Could it be that the current Social, Economical and Ecological interplay (system) is indeed sustaining the current situation (a downward slope to future ecological, economic and hence social havoc?”

I tried to quickly summarized my view in the attached diagram (for those that don’t know how to read such a diagram: boxes are “stock” that accumulate (or decrease) over time. Arrows are “flows” between stocks. A + arrow means that both sides of it move in the same direction (if origin increases, so does the destination of it, and conversely when decreasing). A – arrow means the two ends of the arrow move in opposite directions (if origin increases, destination decreases and vice-versa)).

The corresponding explanation would go something as:

The Economy being in a downturn, it negatively impacts the Social capital of people (trust, willing to give to others [not in terms of money but more on the line of compassion and relationships]), which makes them less likely to contribute to improvements of the Economy (R1).

A decreasing Economy is negatively impacting Ecology as well (R2 through Ecological capital and Survival Instinct back to Social Capital) which, along with all the fuss about Ecology in the medias (UN call including), stresses out our Survival instinct, thereby negatively impacting our Social capital as well.

The less we have a Social capital, the less likely we are to contribute to Ecology (R4).

The last loop is about our stressed out Survival instinct that negatively impacts our Social capital, reinforcing the downturn in Survival instinct (R3).

Please show me where I’m wrong?!

Of course, should that situation has an ounce of veracity, the question would be: out to get out of it. This is the whole purpose of the aforementioned thread to propose some systemic (revolutionary in itself, probably) answer.

SystemsWiki is a great web site for those that want to learn more about Systems Thinking. It relies heavily on the LinkedIn group Systems Thinking World (which I invite you to join if you’re so inclined). The group’s description is the following:

We believe a systemic perspective provides the best foundation for creating effective approaches for dealing with situations and shaping a better tomorrow. Our purpose is to create content which furthers understanding of the value of a systemic perspective and enables thinking and acting systemically.

According to recent research, it seems that 95% of the universe accounts for something which we can’t sense, yet know (for, as constructivism tells us, the nervous system is a closed system and we can only build knowledge from what we experience through our senses).

What gives hope for the future, yet, is that we inferred the existence of that Dark side of the universe through its consequences in the reality-out-there-we’re-able-to-sense.

How does it relates to constructivism? Well, all of our knowledge is initially rooted in what we once felt through our senses as primitive humans. That means that what we can’t sense, we can’t know about. Yet, some systemic trick inside our mind is at play here, meaning that there’s a reverse to the medal: what we don’t know about, we most often can’t sense. Thomas the Apostle might complain here, but if he was to only believe in what he saw, the facts are that we only see what we believe in first. Moreover, this has been proven biologically by great researchers such as Humberto Maturana at least that studied some nervous systems: the external stimuli to nervous systems are really not up to par with the electrical activity constantly going on internally – it only barely account for changes in the nervous system.

The reason for our brain discounting what he doesn’t know from the sense is probably because it’s a way to filter the vast amount of information that comes constantly from the senses to the brain. Some abstractions and simplifications are done that allow it to more quickly react to potential dangers.

And yet, we, as humans, are sometimes capable of “discovering” new facts for which we didn’t know about. Of this, we must thank our time-binding capability, as Alfred Korzybski taught us (that mean we don’t start from scratch at each generation, but we build our knowledge on top of that of the preceding generations). And thanks to our high-level cortex, we’re able to make some mental analysis and infer things for which we might not have any sensory experience before. Indeed, that what some great thinkers do all the time, as for instance Einstein when he “discovered” the Theory of Relativity.

So, what’s the point of this article? Well, it depends on you, dear reader 🙂

On some basic account, it’s a tremendous message for the future to come about possible new discoveries regarding the Universe.

On some more pragmatic level, the next time you don’t understand your manager, your employee or any of these humans you encounters all day long, rather than discounting them as idiots:

ask yourself what dark side of them you might not be knowing?

ask yourself what side of you is a dark side from their point of view?

finally, ask them about what might be the reasons for their acting as they do that you don’t know about which explains the behaviors you witnessed. Because chances you assigned meaning to those behaviors that are different from their intent or that you didn’t saw other part of their behaviors that would have explained everything, should you have known before.

Readers of this blog know that I’m a big fan of Training Within Industry programs. They were at the roots of Lean, along with other things. Although we usually talk of Job Methods as the ancestor of Kaizen, I would like to make a small focus today on Job Relations and how it is sound advice when it comes to change management.

The JR cover page states the following about the purpose of the program:

The Training Within Industry program of Job Relations was developed in order to provide management with a tool whereby supervisors could acquire skill of leadership.

Now, reading the associated card, one can see the following notices:

A supervisor gets results through people.

and

People must be treated as individuals.

I’m not going to review the whole program or card, but would like to stress how JR could make for a good training for any change agent, especially managers when then need to lead a change on their perimeter.

Foundations for good relations

First, there are some fundamental points stressed in JR as how to behave with people and maintain good relations. Two are worth stressing in the context of change:

Tell people in advance about changes that will affect them

Tell them WHY if possible

Get them to accept change

Make best use of each person's ability

Look for ability not now being used

Never stand in a person's way

How often are we seeing changes that are not told in advance and where the affected persons’ ability are not used in the change? I don’t see these two points as being separated, but as working together.

Indeed, it’s been recognized over and over that people are less likely to resist change when they understand the reasons behind it and they get a change to participate in it (by using their abilities).

By keeping the JR card with you and studying it thoroughly, you increase your chances of managing your people respectfully.

JR method step 1: Get the facts

The first step of the JR method is about “getting the facts”. Late Lean literature talks of “grasping the situation”, which is very similar, if not identical.

Worth mentioning though is the “Get opinions and feelings” item. From a systems thinking point of view, it’s good as it fosters different perspectives on the situation. Now, this item is not detailed on the card, but it’s the only one being given a list of key points on how to achieve it, if you do the hard work of reading the sessions outline (synthesis available in session V):

How to get opinions and feelings

Don't argue

Encourage individual to talk about what is important to him

Don't interrupt

Don't jump at conclusions

Don't do all the talking yourself

Listen

How’s this for a “manager as coach” behavior? How often have you encountered a manager that really listens to you that way?

JR method step 3: Take action

Step 3 is interesting here for the two following points:

Are you going to handle this yourself?

Do you need help in handling?

What’s important here to me is when these two points of the method are combined with the preceding two fundamental points mentioned above. Indeed, a manager or change leader should not fear from getting help from the very people who are going to be impacted by the change. By reflecting in how s/he could get help from the people, by using their ability, he considerably augments the chances of the change going well.

Seeking help and involving others is not a sign of failure, but of sound responsibility.

(From a systems thinking point of view again, it helps achieve requisite variety with respect to the change perimeter).

Conclusion

I hope to have shown how the use of TWI Job Relations method can help in leading change. Of course, this is a bit slower than traditional “command and control” way of managing change, but I bet the JR way has a lot more long-term beneficial consequences than the traditional way.

Also, when people participate and build something, they learn and can adapt to changing setting. Like building resilience in. When you’re in charge, they don’t learn. Or they don’t learn what could save you all later. The less they learn, the more reluctant you’ll be to give them the reins. That’s shifting the burden… You’re setting up yourself for failure…

Variety is loosely defined as “the number of different states a system can be in”.

The Law of Requisite Variety states that for a system to effectively control another one, it must feature at least as much variety as the one it wants to control.

So these are the basis of the VSM. Here is how it goes.

Environment

The Environment is what the system wants to control, so the system must bear the requisite variety, either genuinely or through attenuation (which means that different states of the Environment are managed through the same response from the System because, from the point of view of the System, they fall into the same “category”).

So, in front of each part of the Environment the System wishes to control, there a corresponding Operations part that interacts with it.

Operations

Operations manage parts of the Environment. As these parts may overlap, different Operations sub-systems need to communicate (represented as the big zig zag line between the two circles on the diagram).

Please note an important point: the VSM is a recursive model, meaning that every Operations is supposed to be a VSM in itself.

The preceding sentence means that each Operation sub-system is autonomous in the management of its portion of the Environment. More on this later.

Yet, as I said above, some parts of the Environment may overlap, meaning that different Operations sub-systems have to cooperate. Which might, sometime, require some external help in the form of Management.

In the VSM, Operations is named “System 1”.

Management

The Management sub-systems are Systems 2, 3, 3*, 4 and 5 with the following roles:

System 2 is in charge of all the signaling between Operations and System 3

System 3 manages the relations between different Operations sub-systems and resolve any residual conflicts that may not have been resolved between the System 1 themselves . In VSM speech, it’s said to absorb any residual variety not managed by Operations

System 3* (three-star) is an audit system onto Operations

System 4 is the foreseeing sub-system in charge of anticipating the future of the Environment as a whole to ensure the VSM will evolve accordingly. Operations are mainly in charge of the present of the Environment parts they’re dealing with and of the Future of their part (since VSM being recursive they have their own sub-system 4)

lastly, system 5 is the ethos of the whole VSM, the policy, what defines the strategy of the whole.

Usage of VSM

How do you use the VSM? Mainly, there are two possible usages:

one is to define the structure of an organization, the VSM being a template against which a real organization may be designed.

the other possible usage is as an audit model where an existing organization is assessed against the model to see where some sub-systems could be lacking, possibly impeding viability of the whole, or where parts of the organization may not fit the VSM in which case these parts can be candidates for removal.

On a more pragmatic level, the overall structure of VSM (and Stafford Beer work on that topic) shows that a viable organization is one where operational entities are autonomous with respect to what they have to manage in the environment, yet following an overall strategy defined at global System 5 level.

Communications between Operations need to exist to ensure coordination and someone must be in charge of coordinating the whole (System 3). Time is taken into account by keeping an eye on the future (System 4) and informing the strategy and/or the management of Operations (System 3) where deemed necessary.

The other side of the coin showed by VSM is that any central authority trying to control everything from the top to down is doomed to fail because it will violate the law of requisite variety (it can’t have the requisite variety). The Environment won’t be properly matched by the variety of the system and so the overall viability is at risk.

Finally, I already talked a bit about VSM (by giving my own sources and mindmap) here (the mindmap is about other principles exposed by Stafford Beer).